Delhi District Court
Mst. Aneesa Siddique vs Sh. Shail Kumar Rohatagi on 20 August, 2018
In the Court of CCJ cum ARC, Pilot Court (Central District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Case No. E418/17
CIS No. 478/17
In the matter of :
Mst. Aneesa Siddique
W/o Mohd. Muqeem Siddiqui,
R/o Top Floor, 44804481, Ward No. XI,
(Old Plot No. 7/20), Ram Tel Bhawan,
now known as Ansari Road, Daryaganj,
New Delhi. ...........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Shail Kumar Rohatagi
Kashyap Lane Side, 44804481, Ward No. XI,
(Old Plot No. 7/20), Ram Tel Bhawan,
now known as Ansari Road, Daryaganj,
New Delhi. ..........Respondent
Date of institution : 31.05.2017
Date of reserved for judgment : 04.08.2018
Date of decision : 20.08.2018
Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Mst. Aneesa Siddique against the respondent Sh. Shail Kumar Rohatagi for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., one hall, one room, kitchen and common bathroom, on Kashyap Lane side property no. 44804481, Ward No. XI (Old Plot No. 7/20), Ram Tel Bhawan, E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 1 of 14 now known as Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition, on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act').
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner/landlady of property no. 44804481, Ward No. XI (Old Plot No. 7/20), Ram Tel Bhawan, now known as Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi, having purchased the same by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 10.08.2009. The respondent was inducted as a tenant in the premises in question by the previous owner/landlord. The tenanted premises is bonafidely and urgently required by the petitioner for her residence and for the residence of her family members dependent upon her.
3. It is averred by the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner alongwith his two brothers Mohd. Jameel Siddique and Abdul Basit Siddique, are residing jointly as one unit having same single mess and joint business. The family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband and two sons, namely Abu Sufiyan Siddique and Mohd. Zibran Siddique aged 29 years and is of marriageable age. Sh. Abu Sufiyan Siddique is married and the name of his wife is Binish. Sh. Mohd. Jameel Siddique has his wife, namely, Mst Madina Jameel Siddique and one married daughter Mst. Rakshina and soninlaw Mohd. Akram Khan who have two children, one son and one E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 2 of 14 daughter aged 10 and 8 years respectively and they are studying. Another daughter, namely, Alvira Siddique is also married. The said daughter alongwith her husband is living abroad and she comes alongwith her husband and children and stay with the family. Sh. Abdul Basit Siddique has his wife, namely, Nussrat Basit Siddique and three daughters. All these three daughters are college going students. They all are dependent on the petitioner for residence. The family consists of 20 members and all are major. The petitioner requires 5 rooms, one drawingcumdining room, bathroom, toilet and kitchen for self, her husband and two sons and daughterinlaw. Further, Mohd. Jameel Siddique requires 5 rooms, drawingcum dining, bathroom, toilet and kitchen for self, his wife, daughters and sonsinlaw and Abdul Basit Siddique requires five rooms, one drawingcumdining room, bathroom, kitchen and toilet besides one study room for himself, his wife and three daughters. Further, atleast one room is required as guest room. The petitioner and her entire family is living on top floor of the said property which is highly inadequate and insufficient for their requirement. The accommodation in her occupation is shown in green colour in the site plan. It is averred that the petitioner being the owner is lawfully entitled to use her property for her own residence and by the family members dependent upon her. The family detailed above is dependent upon the petitioner for residential premises and the E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 3 of 14 petitioner has got no other reasonably suitable accommodation with her.
On the above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
4. Summons were served upon the respondent, who appeared and filed leave to defend application, which was allowed vide order dated 23.08.2017 and the respondent was granted leave to contest the present eviction petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed written statement denying the contentions made by the petitioner. It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Court. It is submitted that the present petition has not been filed for any bonafide need. The site plan filed by the petitioner is not a true and correct site plan as per the site in existence. It is submitted that the respondent is filing the correct site plan as per the site in existence. Further, it is submitted that the bonafide need as shown by the petitioner in the petition has been exaggerated and no document has been placed on record thereby showing that the alleged person for whose requirements the petition has been filed required the property in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also got alternative accommodation which has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the entire plaint. The petitioner for their ulterior motive have concealed the property available to the E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 4 of 14 petitioner. It is submitted that the site plan filed by the petitioner is totally incorrect and the accommodation which is available to the petitioner has been concealed by the petitioner for her ulterior motive. Since the tenanted premises was let out for non residential purposes, as such, the present petition is not maintainable under the provision of law for evicting the tenant of the tenanted premises for residential purposes. From perusal of the site plan filed by the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation. It is submitted that the petitioner has also not disclosed as to what are the change of circumstances for filing the present petition and to why it has been filed at this stage inspite of the fact that the petitioner has become the alleged owners of the property long back according to him.
5. It is submitted that the present petition of the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law due to nonjoinder of necessary parties. The premises in question is joint tenancy and besides the respondent Mr. Rajeev Kumar, son of Balkishan Rohtagi is also the tenant of the suit premises. Further, it is submitted by the respondent that the present petition has not been duly signed, filed, verified and instituted by the competent person. It is specifically denied that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the premises in question. It is also denied that the respondent is the only tenant in the suit premises. It is submitted that the tenancy is joint and common. It is submitted that besides the E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 5 of 14 respondent Mr. Rajeev Kumar was also inducted as a tenant in the suit premises. It is specifically denied that the tenanted premises shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition is correct. Further, it is specifically denied that the suit premises is occupied by single tenant as alleged. Further, it is denied that the respondent is using the premises for residential purpose or as a single tenant. It is submitted that the premises in question is being used as godown for storing the goods and articles. It is specifically denied that the family members of both the brothersinlaw of the petitioner are residing with the petitioner. It is also denied that all the above named persons in petitioner's family are dependent on the petitioner for residence or all the family members are 20 in number or all are major. It is submitted that the entire ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor except the portion which is in the possession of the respondent is lying vacant. It is specifically denied that the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner is shown in green colour. It is submitted that the site plan filed by the petitioner is false and not as per the site in existence. It is submitted that the respondent has deposited the rent regularly under Section 27 of the DRC Act as petitioner refuse to accept the rent from the respondent.
6. Replication filed, wherein the petitioner has denied all the averments made by the respondent in his written statement, re averring what was averred by her in the eviction petition. Further, it E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 6 of 14 is submitted by the petitioner that the premises is residential and was let out for residence and the same is bonafidely and urgently required by the petitioner for her residence and for the residence of family members dependent upon her. Further, it is submitted that the site plan as filed is correct and shows the tenanted premises properly and correct. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no alternative accommodation with her. It is submitted that the petitioner has not concealed the accommodation available with her and she has specifically stated and detailed the accommodation in the petition. It is submitted that the premises in occupation of the petitioner is inadequate. Further, it is submitted that the respondent has not stated as to which accommodation, beyond that which has been alleged by her in her use, is available to her.
7. During evidence, Sh. Abdul Basit Siddiqui stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of the eviction petition. Further, he relied upon the following documents :
a) Deed of Power of Attorney : Ex. PW1/1 b) Copy of Sale Deed : Ex. PW1/2 c) Site plan : Ex. PW1/3
d) Aadhar Card of the petitioner : Ex. PW1/4
8. During respondent evidence, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent does not wish to examine any witness and thus, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the respondent, E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 7 of 14 evidence was closed vide order dated 01.08.2018 and the case was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the record.
Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958. i. Petitioner is the owners/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
ii. She requires the premises bonafidely for herself or for family members dependent upon her;
iii. She has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
Ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship :
10. In the present case, it is denied by the respondent that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the premises in question. However, it is himself submitted by the respondent that he has deposited the rent regularly in favour of the petitioner with respect to the premises in question under Section 27 of the DRC Act as the petitioner refused to accept the rent from the respondent. Once the respondent has tendered rent with respect to suit premises in favour of the petitioner admitting her to be the owner/landlord qua the suit premises, the respondent is estopped u/s 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from disputing the title of the petitioner over the premises in question. Moreover, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 registered on 10.08.2009 vide which she had purchased the suit premises. Hence, the ownership of the E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 8 of 14 petitioner over the premises in question as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties stands duly proved for the purpose of the DRC Act.
Bonafide requirement and availability of alternative suitable accommodation :
11. It is submitted by the petitioner that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by her for the residence of herself and her dependent family members. It is submitted by the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner alongwith his two brothers Mohd. Jameel Siddique and Abdul Basit Siddique, are residing jointly as one unit having same single mess and joint business. The family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband and two sons, namely Abu Sufiyan Siddique and Mohd. Zibran Siddique aged 29 years and is of marriageable age. Sh. Abu Sufiyan Siddique is married and the name of his wife is Binish. Sh. Mohd. Jameel Siddique has his wife, namely, Mst Madina Jameel Siddique and one married daughter Mst. Rakshina and soninlaw Mohd. Akram Khan who have two children, one son and one daughter aged 10 and 8 years respectively and they are studying. Another daughter, namely, Alvira Siddique is also married. The said daughter alongwith her husband is living abroad and she comes alongwith her husband and children and stay with the family. Sh. Abdul Basit Siddique has his wife, namely, Nussrat Basit Siddique and three daughters. All these three daughters are college going students. They all are dependent on the E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 9 of 14 petitioner for residence. The family consists of 20 members and all are major. The petitioner requires 5 rooms, one drawingcumdining room, bathroom, toilet and kitchen for self, her husband and two sons and daughterinlaw. Further, Mohd. Jameel Siddique requires 5 rooms, drawingcumdining, bathroom, toilet and kitchen for self, his wife, daughters and sonsinlaw and Abdul Basit Siddique requires five rooms, one drawingcumdining room, bathroom, kitchen and toilet besides one study room for himself, his wife and three daughters. Further, atleast one room is required as guest room. The petitioner and her entire family is living on top floor of the said property which is highly inadequate and insufficient for their requirement. The accommodation in her occupation is shown in green colour in the site plan. It is averred that the petitioner being the owner is lawfully entitled to use her property for her own residence and by the family members dependent upon her. The family detailed above is dependent upon the petitioner for residential premises and the petitioner has got no other reasonably suitable accommodation with her.
12. Per contra, the respondent has stated that the bonafide need as shown by the petitioner in the present petition is exaggerated. No document has been placed on record by the petitioner showing that the alleged persons, for whose bonafide requirement the present petition has been filed, require the premises in question. It is E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 10 of 14 submitted that the petitioner has got alternative accommodations which have not been disclosed by the petitioner. It is denied that the family members of both the brothersinlaw of the petitioner are residing with the petitioner or are dependent upon the petitioner for their residence. It is submitted that the entire ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor, except the portion which is in possession of the respondent, is lying vacant.
13. Perusal of the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 shows that the suit property has been purchased by the petitioner Aneesa Siddiqui and at the time of its purchase, the same was three storey pucca built up property measuring 324.4068 sq. meters. The petitioner is stating to be residing in the said property alongwith 20 other family members who are allegedly dependent upon her for residential purposes. However, the brothersinlaw of the petitioner cannot be considered to be the family members who are dependent upon the petitioner as it is the husband and children of the petitioner who can be said to be dependent upon her and not the brothersinlaw and their family members. In case, it is alleged by the petitioner that her brothersin law and their family members are dependent upon her for the purpose of accommodation as they are living jointly having a single mess and joint business, then also, no documentary proof of joint business or of single mess or of joint residence has been placed on record by the petitioner. Even though the photocopy of Aadhar E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 11 of 14 Cards have been placed on Court record by the petitioner at the time of filing of the present petition, however, same were never exhibited/proved during evidence by the petitioner for the reasons best known to her. In the case of Amar Nath Agarwalla v. Dhillo Transport Agency in Civil Appeal No. 12231224 of 2005 dated 28.02.2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question whether the Court can look into documents which are not exhibited has held that "it appears that alongwith his written submissions, the plaintiff filed certain documents which were not exhibited at the trial to prove sub letting and in our view those documents cannot be looked into since they were not put in evidence and the defendant had no opportunity to replying to those documents". The petitioner has nowhere mentioned regarding the Aadhar Cards of her family members in her affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A. Moreover, the Ex. PW1/4, i.e., Aadhar Card of the petitioner herself does not find any mention in affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A. Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove the number of family members residing in the suit property and how they can be considered dependent on her for the purpose of accommodation.
14. Further, the petitioner has relied upon one site plan Ex. PW1/3. The said site plan shows that the property is built up to 3 floors, i.e., consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. However, the said site plan has been disputed by the respondent and E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 12 of 14 the respondent has filed his own site plan in order to contradict the site plan filed by the petitioner which shows ground, first, second and third floor built on the suit property. During crossexamination, the respondent has put the site plan filed by the respondent Ex. PW1/R1 to the witness PW1, who has admitted that the said site plan Ex. PW1/R1 to be correct as per the site. Perusal of the site plan Ex. PW1/R1 shows that the suit property consists of four floors, i.e., ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor and on each floor there are 10 rooms each besides toilet, bathroom, kitchen, etc., meaning thereby that in the suit property there are around 40 rooms. The petitioner has failed to show in whose possession the said rooms are and how those rooms are not suitable and sufficient for her alleged 20 family members.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that after addressing the final arguments, the petitioner has moved an application u/s 151 CPC for rectification of the error in exhibiting the site plan. The said application is dismissed by the Court. However, as PW1 has himself admitted the site plan filed by the respondent Ex. PW1/R1 to be correct as per site which shows that the suit property consists of ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor, therefore, as per own version of PW1, it is clear that the site plan Ex. PW1/3 as well as other site plan relied upon by the petitioner which does not mention the third floor are incorrect. Moreover, the petitioner has E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 13 of 14 placed on record the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 which also mentions that the suit property purchased by the petitioner is three storied built up property, as shown in colour red in the site plan attached. However, the petitioner has failed to file the said site plan annexed with the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 on record. Hence, the petitioner is found to be concealing the actual accommodation available with her. Whoever comes to the Court has to come with clean hands, without concealing the material facts of the case. Hence, on this ground alone, the petition filed by the petitioner ought to be rejected.
16. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner has failed to prove her bonafide requirement as well as nonavailability of alternative suitable accommodation with her for her alleged bonafide requirement. Hence, the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, is dismissed as rejected. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2018.08.21
DAGAR 16:32:13 -0400
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 20th Day of August, 2018 CCJ cum ARC
Pilot Court (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 14 pages.)
E418/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Shail Kumar Rohatagi Page 14 of 14